1+1
Nencnalljb rarv ctcaoaceAcquisitionsand Direction.des~uiSihOn~ot BibliograpnicServicesBranch des services bibllOgraph,quos 395WelfonglOnSlfe('l 395.,..<>Weloni/lu",
~'~~400la"ll W\'~~OnIatlo)
NOTICE AVIS
The quality of this microform Is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original thesis submitted for microfilming.
Every effort has been made to ensure the highest quality of reproduction possible.
Ifpages are missing,contact the univers ity which granted the degree.
Some pages may have indistinct print especially if the original pages were typed with a poor typewriter ribbon or if the university sent us an inferior photocopy.
Reproductionin full or in part of this microform is governed by the Canadian Copyright Act, R.S.C. 1970, o. C·30, and subsequent amendments.
Canada
La quatlte de cette microforme depend grandement de la quaute de la these sou mise au microfilmage. Nous avons tout fait pour assurer une qualite euperteurede reproduction.
S'i1 manque des pages,veuillez communiquer avec l'unlverslte qui a
conrere
Ie grade.La qualtte d'impression de certaines pages peut laisser
a
deslrer, surtout si les pages
originales ont
ele
dactyloqraphlees
a
I'aide d'un ruban use ou si t'unlversltenous a tait parvenir une photocopie de quallte inferleure.La reproduction,meme partielle, de celle microforme estsoumise it la loi canadienne sur Ie droit d'auteur,SRC 1970, c.C·30,et ses amendements subsequents,
St.Jo hn's
A Studyof
NewfoundlandHijshSchoolStudents ViewsonTechnology
by NancyParsonsHearn
AThesissubmitted inpartial fulfilment oftherequirementsforthedegreeof
MasterofEducation
FacultyofEducanon
MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland 1994
Newfoundland
1+1
NationalLibrary orCanada AC:-" ui$ilions and Bit,·,'lgfap/'licservices 8Jancn395WeNiI\(llt.o1SU~
ll\'.r ot.
0 n1anD~b~~naHonale Oirec lion des acq uisaions el desservcee biblioglaphiq ues 395,lUGWe longlon Otlawll«(lnlario) K1A0N4
TIlE AUTHORHASGRANTEDAN IRREVOCABLENON·EXCLUSlVE LICENCE ALLOWING THE NATIONAL LmRARY OF CANADATO REPRODUCE, LOAN,DISTRIBUTE OR SELLCOPIESOF HIS/HERTHESISBY ANYMEANS ANDIN ANY FORM OR FORMAT. MAKINGTHISTHESIS AVAILABLETO INTERESTED PERSONS.
THEAUTHORRETAINSOWNERSHIP OFTIlE COPYRIGHTIN mSIHER THESIS.NEITHERTHE TIlESISNOR SUBSTANTIALEXTRACTSFROMIT MAYBE PRINTEDOR OTHERWISE REPRODUCEDWITHOtrr HISIHER PERMISSION.
ISBN 0-315-96056-6
Canada
L'AUTEUR A ACCORDEUNE LICENCE IRREVOCABLE ET NON EXCLUSIVE PERMETTANTA LA BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALE DU CANADA DE REPRODUIRE.PRETER,DISTRIDUER OUVENDREDESCOPIESDE SA THESE DE QUELQUEMANIEREET SOUS QUELQUE FORMEQUECE
sorr
POURMETTREDESEXEMPLAIRESDE CETTETHESEA LA DISPOSITION DES PERSONNEINTERESSEES.
L'AUTEURCONSERVBLA PROI'RIETE DU DROITD'AUTEURQUIPROTEGE SA THESE.NI LA THESENIDES EXTRAITS SUBSTANTIELSDE CElLE·
CI NE DOIVENTETRE IMPRIM6SOU AUTREMENTREPRQDUITSSANSSON AUTORISATION.
Abstrac t
The STS(Science, Technology and Society)movementhas becomeincreasingly important inscience educationinrecent years. Scienceeducatio nmustnow prepare students rclive and work in a societythatislikelyto he even moretechnologic ally oriented than today.Thisimpliesthat students mustunderstandtheconcept oftechnology ifthey aretoparticipate fullyinsociety. Developing a clearunders tandingof technology islikely to be enhanced byaddressingany misconceptionsthatstudentsmay alreadyhold.
This study isanattempttodiscoverhow clearare theconceptions and misconcepti ons abouttechnologythat are heldby atypical groupof highschoolstude ntsinthis province.
Arepresentative sample consistingof36 students whower elikely toparticipatein apilotversionof the new STS course was selected fromparticipatin gschools.Aurttion resultedin afinal samplesizeof 26. An approximately30 minuteinterview was conductedwitheachstudent.
Theinterviewincludeddiscussions of examples ofscie nce andtechnology,the activities associatedwithscienceandtechnology,thepurposesof scienceandtechnology, the relationships betweenscience, technologyandsociety,characteristics ofscientistsand techno logistsandsourc esofinformation aboutscienceand techn ology. Eachinterview was tape-recordedand transcribed verbatim.Conceptual inventorie swerethenconstructed
i i
fromeach transcrip tand the data were analyzed.
Theresults indicatedthat a majority of the students didnot have a clear understandingof the conceptof technology,and.that in manycases,theyhad difficulty distinguishingbetweenscience and technology.Most students coulddifferentiatebetween activitiesassociated withscience andactivitiesassociatedwith techn ology,respectively.
Many studentsheldstereotypicalimages of scientistsandtechnolo gists.A majority of Ihe studentsinthesamplefell it was important to be informed about science and technologyand thatthegeneralpopulationshouldplayarolein the decision-making process formattersinvolvingscience andtechnology. There was someconcernexpressed by thestudents thatthe re wasnot enoughinformationavailableto them inschoolabout science andtechnology, even though schoolwas usuallytheir primarysource of information .
iii
Acknowledgements
Iwould like tothank the many peoplewhoassistedand encouragedmein the preparation of this thesis.I amextremelygrateful tomythesis supervisor.Dr. A.K.
Grif!ithswhohas shown patienceand wisdomin guiding methroughthisendeavour.IIis assistancehas been invaluable.
1alsowishtothankmy husband Randyfor his supportand mysonJoshua, whose arr ival half way through this projectchangedmywholeperspecti ve on life. A spcda l thankyoualsoto my parent s fornevergiving uphopethatIwouldget thisdone .
Thanks must alsogo out 10theschools involved inthe pilotSTSproject formaking it possibleformetoconductthestudy and toallthestudentswhoparticipated. Carl Stevenson's assistance with thesketches is also verymuch appreciated. Finally,thankyou to all theteachers, studentsandco-workers who assistedin the validation of the data.
Withoutthe cooperation of all thesepeople.this thesis wouldnothavebeenpossible.
iv
Tableof Contents
Abstract....
Acknowledgements
List of Tables .
List.ofFigures CHAPTER
THERESEARCH PROBLEM Overviewofthe Chaplet Introduction tothe Problem...
Need forthe Study....
Purpose and Rationalelor theStudy....
ResearchQuestions . Limitationsof the Study Delimitationsof theStudy...
Summary
REVIEW OF THEUTERATURE..
Overview ofthe Chapter...
LiteratureReview-RelatedResearch MethodologicalTechniques...
Page
viii ix
21
Summary . 3 METHODOLOGY FORTHE STUDy...
Overview oftheChapter.
The Sample...
Question Development...
Research Design .
25 25 25 27 29
AnalysisProcedures 30
Reliabilityand Validity.... 31
Summary 31
4RESULTS ANDp~SCUSSION. ... . JJ
Overview of theChapter... 33
Results 35
Examples ofScienceand Technology... 35 ActivitiesAssociated withScienceand
Teclmology.... 40
The PuIPOse of ScienceandTechnology 44
The Relationship Between Scienceand Technclogy.. 47 Characteristicsof Scientistsand
Technologists.... 50
Responsibilit iesofScientistsand
Technologists 61
vi
RelationshipsBetweenScience,
TechnologyandSociety... ... .... . 63 InformationAboutScienceand Technology.. .. ... .. . 68
AnalyslsontheBasisofGender - 72
Summary... .. ... 73 5SUMMARY,EDUCATIONALIMPUCATIONS.AND
RECOMMENDAnONS... .. ....•. ...•..•.. .. . .. 74
Overview ofthe Chapter 74
Summaryof Results.,. ... 74
Educ.JlionalImplications... 79
RecommendationsforFurther Research.. .. .. .. 81 Summary.. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ... . 83
References .
AppendixA:InterviewGuide...
AppendixB:CoeceprualInventones ..
AppendixC:SampleInterviewTranscript .
vii
84 89 92
\34
List of Tables
Table Page
1Examplesof Scienceand Technology.. 36
2ActivitiesAssociatedWith Science and Technology.... .. "I
3Purposeof Sctence.. 44
4 Purposeof Technology. .. 45
5RelationshipsBetween Science and Technology.. 4l'l 6Characteristics ofScientists(Physic;!!).. . 51 7Characteristics of Scientists(Non-Physical)... 52 8Characteristicsof Tech.nologists (Physical)... 53 9Characteristicsof Technologists(Non-pbyslcal).,; 54 10 ResponsibilitiesofScientistsand Technologists.. 62 11 RelationshipsBetween Science, Technology amiSocicty.. M
12Sourcesof Tnfonnation 70
13Information Availability/Importance.. 71
viii
Figure
ListofFieures
SketchesofScieraistsandTechnologists . Page 59
CHAPTER1 THE RESEARCHPROBLEM
Overview ofthe Chapte r
This chapterintroducestheproblem thatisthe basisforthis researchstudy.As science educationhas becomeincreasinglyaccountableforits relevanceto students Clerc has been anaccompanying increasein the attentionpaid to science-technology-society (STS),as an aspect of scienceeducation. Inorder for studentsto benefit fullyfromSTS curric ulathey must first have clear concepts of whatscienceand tec hno logy arc.
Althoughattention hasbeenpaidto students'individualconceptionsofsciencetherehas beenno parallelemphasis relatingtotheircow-pnonsof technology.Ifstudents are 10 benefitfromSTSprograms,this aspectof their presentknowledgemrstalsobeknown.
If educators do notknowthe present level of students' understand ing andthe misconceptionsthat they hold, then itismore difficultto design programs which willmeet the ir needs. Itis thepurpose of thisstudy, therefore ,to study the conceptionsand misconceptionsof technologyheld bytypicalstudents whomay enter the Science- Technology-Society course in Newfoundland High Schoolsso that this informationcanbe used to identifythecongruence between :-vhat such stude ntsalready know andwhat they mayneedtoknow.The research questionsaredesignedto identifystudents'conceptions
and misconceptions ofthemeaning oftechnology and thesources of theirinformation aboutit.
IntroductionToTheProblem
For appr oximatelythe lasttwo decades, one factor that hashadan increasingly importantimpactonscience educationhas been thatofthe relationshipsbetween science, technology andsociety.Thisfield has come tobeknownsimplyasSTS.Today,more emphasis isbeingplacedin the curriculumon the relevanceofscience,even fornon- scientists, andon the effectsof science onsociety and of societyonscience. This trend hasaccompanied aparalleltrendin oursociety ingenera l. Oursocietyhasbecome focusedin many ways on scientificknowledgeand technolog icalknow-how.Almost any aspectofourlivescanbeimpacted bythebenefitsandlossesassociatedwith the growth of scienceand technology .
Science educationtoday,therefore,must be aimed at preparing the student to live and workina society that is even moretechnologically oriented thanat present. Yager (1984) broughtout theneed todefine scienceeducation asincludingtheinterfacebetween science and society.Accordin g 10 Yager ,scienceeducation wouldhavea mor eobvious legitima cytothe publicin generalif it prepared people to understand theimportanceof scienceand technologyin daily life andfor future generations. Opposing viewpointsto
thishavealsoappeared however.For example Goo<l,Herr on,Lawson,andRenner (1985)refuteYager 's definition anddefinescience education asthedisciplinedevotedto discover ing,developing and evaluating improvedmethodsandmaterialsto leachscience.
However,themajor ityof writers inthef.':ldof scienceeducation tend toward Yager's view but notquitetotheextent ofhis statements (Bybee,1987;Bybee,Harms,Ward,&
Yager 1980;Pensham,1988;Fleming ,1989; Knamiller,1984;and McConnell,1982).
Bybee(1987) discusses the idea thatschoolingshouldserveindividualand, ultimately,society's needsformaintenance and development. Bybeeconcludeslhat scienceeducation should enhancethe personaldevelopment of allsmdentsand contribute to theirlives as citizens. To dothishe says wemustlook atanSTSorientation. This would include research and developmentof a curr iculum thatincludes,amongother things,knowledge . skillsand understandings relative10technology. Fensham (1988) states thatSTS isan attempttobring science education closer totheneedsofcitizens in an increasinglytechnological society. Yager (l993) suggests thatSTS meansusing technology as aconnectorbetweenscienceandsoc ietyand thatthis meansthat the applicationsof science areseenascloserto thelives of students, includingfood,clothing , shelter,transportation,communication and careers .
AlthoughFleming (1989) proposesthatwe should teach students that technology isnot something tobecompletelyunderstood,ifs mdents are tobepreparctltoJivein this futuretechnological society thenit seemsreasonable that theymust first haveclear
concepts ofscience.technology,society and therelationships betweenthesethree.
Flemingdefinedtechn ologicalliteracy as whena personhas the power andthe freedom tousethatpowerto examineand questionissues of importance insoclorechnology.
Studentscanneverachieve this powerwithoutunderstanding technology.Thisstudy.
therefore, is an attemptto discover how clearis the conceptoftechnology that isheld by high~hoolstudents in thisprovince andwhat.if any.misconceptionstheyhave aboutit.
Need For The Study
Althoughthere is a verylargebodyoflitera nrrerelatingto technologyin the curriculum (Donnelly. 1992),little attentionhas beenpaidto measuringstudents'concepts of technology(Wolthers,Raat and de Vries,1990).Inthis province,preparationsare being madefor the introductionof a newscience-technology-societycourseat the high schoollevelinSeptember1994. Thiscourse hasrunas a pilotprojectin the previoustwo school years.ConsistentwithAusubel'ssuggestion that"Th e mostImportant single factor influencinglearning is whatIhe learneralreadyknows; ascertai n this andteachhim accordingly(Ausubel, 1968 p.w)",itisof benefit [0 know what the students understand bytheterm technologywhen they enterthecourse.
Thefirst goalstatedinthecoursedescription for thiscourseis thatstudentsshould
beabletodevelop anunderstandin g oftheinterrelationships amongscience,technology and society (Go vernme ntof Newfoundlandand Labrado r,199 3).Intum.thisrequires thateachstudent shoulddevelopan adequate concept of science and technology.The likelihood of successinacMevingtheselearning outcomeswillbegreatlyimproved if teachersand curriculumdevelopershave someknowledgeaboutwhatstudentsalready unde~Wldaboutthe meaning of technology.Thestudyisintended tofill insomeofthaI informationand.in eddino n, discoveranymisconceptions about similari ties and differe ncesin themeani ng ofscience andtechnologythaithe studentshold which may impact on furtherdevelopment of these concepts.
PurposeAndRationaleForThe Study
Thisstudyattemptstodiscover highschoolsndene'understanding Clfthe meaning oftechnology andhowitdiffers from sclerce .Itis aimed particularlyatdclermining the scope of students'concepts of technology and identifyinganyconsistentmecorcepnons oralternate conceptions that they boklaboutit.
The importance ofascertainingthis info rmationtowardsimproving theSTS educationofNewfoundlandsrcdenecanbeseeninthefollowingstatementfromthe science-techno logy-soc iety course description, "Thesocialand economic futureof Newfoundlandwilldependon theappropriateuse ofscience andtechnologytomanageour
resourcesanddevelopneweconomicopportunities.whichinturnwill dependonhow well we educateour youthtoutilize science andtechnology"(Governmentof Newfoundland and Labrador.1993,p.3).
Clearly,anunderstandingof the meaning of technologyis important, yet therehas beenno similar studyto thisinthis provincenorwithrespectto similar students elsewhere an~thereforethis exploratorystudy iswarranted.
Although this studywas conducted with highschool students in theprovince of Newfoundlandand Labrador,it isanareathatshouldbeof concernto educators worldwide.Thelevel ofeducation thatyoungpeoplereceiveinthe areaofscienceand technologyC-1n haveastrong impacton the level of developmentthat their society as a whole will havein thefuture, sincesocietyingeneralisbecomingmoreandmore dependent on scienceand technology.Theresearch donehere thereforemay provide valuableinfonnationin that it canactassupportfor similarresearchand decisionsthat may beundenaken elsewhere.
ResearchQuestions
Thestudy addressesthree researchquestions.
I.Whatare themost prominentfeaturesof theconceptsof the natureof technologyheld byhighschoolstudents?
2.Whatarethemisconceptionsthat students have concerning technology?
3. Whatarethestudents mainsourcesof informationabouttechnology?
Inorder todifferentiate betweentheirunderstandingoftechnologyandscience, students were alsoprobedabout theirrelatedunderstandings with respect to science.
Limitations
or
The StudyThestudy wasconducted in mostof theschools piloting the proposed new provincial STS course, butbecauseof the excessivedistanceinvolved oneschoolwasnot included.Strictly speaking, theschools involvedmaynotberepresentative of the larger provincialpopulationorofschoolselsewhere. Nevertheless . pilot schools forthe proposed course were selectedbythe depanm entof educationtorepresenta varietyof types,sizesand locations of schools.It isreasonableto assume that thesestudentsarc representative ofthe targetpopulation ingeneral.Itis also possiblethat the interview techniquedidnot ascertainall pertinentinformation. Althoughthis is awidelyused methodfor obtaining datarelating tostudents'conceptions and misconceptions, asit allowsprobingofstudents' understandings.it canlend itself10 subjectivity and bias.
Howeverstepsweretakento minimizethisand thereforeenhancethereliability of the
results.
Delimitations
Thisstudy is limited to five schools ontheisland portionof the province of Ne~foundlandandLabrador. Techni callythen, allwe canconcludeon the basis of this istheconceptionsandmisconceptionsheldbytheseparticular students . Strictly speaking theresultsmaynotbegeneralizedtoanyotherpopulation.Howevertheprocedur esused toselectschoolsandstudentsenhances confidencein thegeneralizabilityofthe results obtained.
Summary
This cbapterpresented the research problemthatis being addressed,thatis,the need for more knowledgeabout students'presentunders tandings aboutthe conceptof technology. Argumentswere presented forthe importance of this informationand the consequent needfor a studyto beundertaken10determinethisinformation.The research questionsfor the study werealso described. Chaptertwo outlines researchthat is consideredrelevanltothepresent study.
CHAPTER2 REVIEWOF THE UTERATURE
Overview ofthe Chapter
Thischap terreviews literature and research that is directlyrelatedto thestudy undertaken here.First.anauemptismade to analyzesome ofthevarious definitionsof technologythat canbefoundinthe literature as itis impossible to analyzemeaningfully students' conceptions of technologywithoutfirstdefiningwhattechnologyis.Second.
similarstudiesthathave lookedat students'concepts ofteclmology arereviewed aswell assomeliteraturerelatedtoidentifying students' misconceptions inthefieldof science education. Finallymethodologicaltechniquesusedinthis type of researchand.in particular,the use of tilesemi-structured interview are considered.
LiteratureReview- RelatedResearch
Thereis a growingbody of lit,. rure and researchin the area of science- technology-society.However.it emphasizes someaspects of the field muchmorethan
others.There has beenanabundanceof commentaryaOOcriticalanalysisofthefield, writtenfroma widevarietyofperspectives.However.muchlesshasbeen doneinterms ofactualresearch.TbereisnotevenaconsistentlyaccepIed defmition of technology.For exampleoneBritishstudy(1VEl,19~ooteslen definitions,andDonnelly(1992,p.I2S) commentsthattheseare generally uninformative.
Thenatureoftechnologyisdiscussedatsome lengthinSC:jeng;forAllAmericans, (knericanAssociationfortheAdvancementof Science,1989).Technologyis described asasocial, complex enterprisethatincludes notonly design andcraftsbutalso finance, manu~acturing,management,labor,marketingand maintenance.Therelationshipbetween science and technology isalsodiscussed.Theuseoftechnology inscience to provide toolsisemphasized but itis alsostated thattechnologyismorethan this,asit canalso providethemotivation aOO directionfortheoryandresearch. New technologyoften requiresnewscientificuOOersWlding;new scientificinvestigationsoftenrequirenew technology.Socialand ecoocmlc forces stronglyinfluencewhattechnologies willbe undertaken.attendedto.invested in andused.ACanadianwhoisprominentinIbisfield suggeststhat·SciCIU is peoplesatisfy ingtheir curiosityabouttheworldaroundthem••••
technologyis people respondingto humanneedsbydiscovering, designing, andproducing things orideasforsociety"(AiketW ad.1991,pp.96-97).Finally, UNESCO(1985,p.
8) defineslechnology as: ",..theknow-how and the creative processthatmayutilize 10015,resourcesandsystems tosolve problems,10enhance controlover thenaturaland
man-madeenvironmentinan endeavourtoimprovethe human condition.~ These examplesshow the widerangeof factorsthat mustbetaken intoaccountwhen considering themean ingof technology.Narrow and misleadingdefinitions.such as "lechnology is simply appliedscience",mustbe avoidedif allaspects of theconceptaretobetaken into consideration.
Attempts todefinetechnologyhave been accompaniedbypropo sals of howmuch knowledgeand understandingpeople needtohaveabout technology.This canbeseenin Fleming's (1989) idea of technologicalliteracy.Flemingarguesthat there arc several requisiteunderstandingsto becoming technologically literateincluding developing a meaning for both technologyand literacy;knowingabout the nature of technological knowledge;and developingdecisionmaking skills ina technologicalsociety. A technologicallyliterate person.he says,mustbeabletounderstand the relationship between technology andsocial change. Associationwith technologyhowever,isnot always seen as producinga positiveimage.aspointed out by Carelse (1988).Carelse writes "Thefact thattechnologyisassociatedwiththosewhodo manual work.whereas theeducationsystem islargely controlledbythose who do not, has tendedto give technologya lower status in educationthanscience" (p.lOl ).Asummaryoftheliterature concerning techncloglcaltlteracyispresented byHayden (1989),who also emphasizesthat technologyis much morethan theappl,_~I. ofscience. Based on asynthesisof hundredsof articleswrittenon thesubject Hayden defines techno logyas"asetof
11
processesby which resources areutilizedto extend human potentialwithina given envi ronmentalcontext"and then goes on to define technological literacy similarlyas
"Havingthe knowledgeand ability to select,properlyapply,then monitorand evaluate appropriatetechnology givent~¢context.~
Technology isoften presentedasthe servantof scienceor as applied science.'iet technology pre-datesscience by millennia,asexemplified inancient agriculture, metallu rgy.glass manufacture and even brewing. Fensham(1990) summarizes the differences between science andtechnologyby referring to the culture of scienceversus the culture of technology.He pointsout that technologyismuch olderthanscienceand thatscience and technologyare sometimesrelated and sometimes not,as onecanoftenbe shownto havebeendevelopedwithoutaccompanyingrelated developmentin the other.
Accordingto Fensham,thedifferenceinthe cultureofscience and the cultureof technology is the differencebetween knowingpersons and making persons. Fensham suggeststhai scientiststake nature apart10understandit or explainit.whereas technologists put naturetogether to make somethingnovel;sctentls'sare interested in naturalphenomena.whiletechnologists areinterested in artificialthings;sc ientists tend todoanalytic kinds of thinking,whiletechnologistsare more inclinedtosynthetic thinking;andscientists are interested inknowledge for itsown sake whiletechnologists areInterestedinspecific knowledge for realproblems.FinallyFensham notesthat science involvesdiscoveringanduncovering whe-ees technologyinvolvesdesignandinvention.
Oneof the main purposesofSTS educationis tosee educationbecome more sociallyresponsible.Thisrequires that scienceand technologybeviewed as potentially problematicand dependent onhuman interests.Curriculafollowingthis view challenge studentsto consider the risksto societythat aregeneratedbyscience and.technology (Cross,1993).Butwhat dochildrenand adolescentsconsiderthe essentialcharacteristics oftechnologyto be?
Studentsperceptionsof technologyhave beenstudied . directlyandindirectly on severaloccasions. In a major study ofCanadianhigh schoolstudents, (Aikenhead, Fleming, and Ryan,1987)smdenu' views on interactionsamong science, technology, nnd society were exposed. The sample forthisstudywas selected mostlyon the basisof courseregistration.Thetarget populationcomprised student>takingthesecondyear offeringof biology,chemistryor physicsplusstudents in theirfinalyearofhigh school whowerenot taking anyscience courses.The POPulationof graduatingstudentsnumbered about 202,000.These students were enroleein1941schools acrossCanada.excluding Quebec,theYukonandtheNorthwest Territories.A stratifiedsampleof10.800students wasselected,In MayandJune19r~.a questionnaire (VaSTS)was respondedto by all studentsinthesample. VaSTS was designe.:to overcometheproblem of different perceptionsofquestions on thepart of the srudent andtheassessor respectivelythatmay occurwhenoojectively scoredinstrumentsareusedbyresearchers. VaSTSshiP.::the responsibilityofhandlingsubjectivitytotheresearcher. VaSTS requiresthestudent to
13
write anargu mentative response to a statementonanSTS topic.Theanswersarenot analy zed asright orwrong butratherthe students'argumentsare usedtodefine va rious positions on eachSTS topic.Studentsaregivenone of the46statements thatmake upthe VaSTSinstrumentandare askedto agree, disagree or say theycannot tellandthenargue forthe ir position.Part oneofthestudy looked at students'viewsofthe influenceof scienceandtechnology onsociety.When statementsconcemiegspecific social ills,for examp le,wereputtothestudentstechnoscienceservedasthe basisfor their responses.
Aspart ofthe study, students' beliefsabout theinteraction betweenscience, techno logy andsocietywere analyzed(Fleming,1987).Itwasfoundthat, onthesurf ace , smdena seemedcapable ofdistinguishingbetweenscienceand technology, bu; when they actually hadtodoso in ordertorespond to arelated statementthey failedoverwhelmtcg jy. The rolesofscience andtechnologywere oftenconfused,for examplescientificresearchwas often equatedwith finding cures for disease.Whenstudents'views onthe rolesof science and technologyin decisionmakingconcerning futureenergyuse were analyzed,46percent of the studentsespoused apurely technocraticdecision-makingview.Many ofthese studentsmadetheirchoicebasedon theirbelief that the solidrepertoireoffactsinher ent inthetraining of scientists andtechnologistsmadethisgroup uniquelyprepared to deci de future energy use.Half oftherespondents (48percent)supporteda moredemocr atic model of deci sionmaking on societalissues relatedtoscienceandtechnology.Almost half favoured social control of scienceand technology,expressing their belief that funding
shouldonlybegivento scientistswhocanshow.inadvance,what the returnon the investmentwillbe.Thiny one percent believedthatresearchshouldbefu nded because science functionsto benefitsociety,A thirdpan ofthe study lookedatthe characteris tics and limitatio ns ofscientific knowledge and istherefore not related tothis presen t study . Thefinal pan of thestudy looked atthecharacteristicsofscientists (AikenhclId,1987).
For~xample,when asked why scientistsdoscience,most:.udents listed either"satisfying curiosity"or"strivingfora better world"as theprimary reasons.
Ina related VQSTSstudy (Fleming,1988), a semi-structuredinterviewformatwas usedwith the VQSTS statements todeterminethe viewsofundergraduate sciencestudents.
Itwasfound thatthe viewsofthesestudentswereremarkablysimilar tothose ofhigh schoolstudents.
Another Canadian study in this field has been carrie dOUI inBritishColumbia (ZOller, Ebenezer,Merely,Paras, Sandberg, West, Wolthers,and Tan,1990).This study reported on the beliefsandpositionsof grade11studentswhowereenrolled inanSTS course. A questionnaire comprisedof fourVaSTS statements was administered to 101 studentsinrandomly selectedclasses. The controlgroup consistedof276 stude ntsin randomly selected classes atthe same schoolswho had nottaken Ihe STScourse,The responsesto eachofthefour statement'!weregrouped into"clusters" consistingof one to four responses eachofwhich expressed, inprinciple,the sameview00theissue dealt with. It wasfound thatthe course in question (ST 11) clearlyhadan impact onthe STS
1S
viewpointsofhighschoolsstudents.However,itwas also found matgenderdifference mayplayasignifica nt role inacr.ounting for
me
differencesincertain STS viewpoints betweenSfIIandnon•SfII stUdents.TheSf II students favouredthepublic deciding onworld food production and distributioncomparedwiththenon- ST 11studentswho believed W'scientistsand engineersshould decidethisissue.SfIIstudentsstrongly bel i~vedthatscientistsshouldbeheld responsibleforthehannthatmight resultftul~their discoveries,whereas typically menon- ST 11 students'viewwasthaIthescientistsshould notbeheldresponsiblefor this.Thisstudyconcludedthat ST 11students understandthat society cont rolstechnologicaldevelopmentsandtnnucncesandrespondstoscientific activ ity.Nashet al(1984)studied factorsthatmay influencepup ils to optornotoptfora lech nology course in Er.gland.Aquestionnairewas issuedto 862students in founhyear optionsatfoursecondaryschools.The questionnairewas administeredin"exam-like"
conditions. Ninety-one mJdentsina technologycourse responded to a queryaskingwhy theyoptedto study technology. Twenty-seven(30 percent)repliedthatthey foundIt interestingandagood course, 12(13percent)replied thatit was a usefulsubject for furore career interes tsand nine (10 percent) repliedthatitwasa useful subject forIif\~.These students were alsoquestionedabouttheirperceptions ofthedifferencebetween scienceand technology.The mostpopularexplanationofferedwasthat"T here is more designwork andconstruc tinganddevelop ingyourdesigns intechnology.-
AnotherBritishstudylooked.atr:1pils'perceptions of technology inthesecondary schoolcuniculwn (McCarthyand Moss .1990).Thestudy wascarriedocr in asingle11- 18 co-educationalcomp.ebenslve schoolwitha large.active. crafts.designand technology department.Atotalof 40pupilsfollowing (echnol ogycoursesin thelast fouryearsof the sc:hoolwere asked to complete a questionnairedesigned10 measuretheirallitudes tow~rdstwotce:hnology oriented coursesinte rmsof perceptionsoftechnology. In general.theyperceivedtechnologyas beingintellectuallydemandingand as having:lhigh employmentvalue.Whenasked theirreasons for taking technology.30 ofthe40 students statedthat theybelievedtechnology wouldbeusefulto them in thefuture.
Solomon (1988) analyzed empiricaldata from 284 BritishSTSexaminationscripts.
Candidates.aged 16andt1years.were asked. basedonashort introductionaboutin-vitro fertilization.toexplainthemeaning of the termtechnology.Thequestionwas designed toavoid the usual connectionbetween technology andmachine ry. Still.165 ofthe studentsdefined technology as equipment.toolsormachinery.Aoothcreight percent equaled technologywithscience.
AlargestudybasedinHolland investigated students'auitudes toward su:chnolog y (Wolthers.deKJerk.Raat,and de Vries.t990).Theinstru mentused.thePA1T (Pupils' AttitudesToward sTechnology ).focused on dimensions of pupils'attitudestoward s technologyforboththe cognitiveandconnativecomponents.The cognitivedimensions are(1)technologyandhumans;(2)technologyandscience:(3)technologyandskills;and
17
(4) technology and matter ,energyandinformation.Two of theconnauvecomponentsare alsoof interes t here. namely consequencesof technologyandtechnologyinthe school curric ulum, respectively.The firststudy,conductedinthe Netherlands.sampledstudents inthesecondyea rof secondaryschoo l. AboutSOOstudentswereinvolved.Results showed that students mainly associated technology with machines andequipment,nor with hum~ns.Theytend edto see onlytheproduct aspectoftechnology.nottheprocess aspect.
Studentswereinterested intechno logy butgirlsweresignifica ntlyless interested than boys. Students in techn ical/ vocational education appearedtobe moreinterestedin techn ology but didnotappea r to have a betterconceptof technologythanstudents in generalsecondary education.A second PATT studyconductedin India witha sampleof 116716-plusstudentsin urbanandruralsettingslooked at male/female differences in their attitudesto technology. Results showed [hatdifferences betweenboys andgirlswere not significanlon most scales.Athird studywas carried outinPoland and involved about 600 studentsin generalsecondary education. In this studyslightlymore than half the students showedan interes tintechnology.Boys showedsignifica ntlymoreinterestthangirls.A largemajority ofthe studentsfeltthattechnologywas important{or thedevelopment of their countryandalmostallstudentsmentionedproduc tionas an elementof technology . Overtwothirds mentioneda re lationshipbetweentechnology andscience. Another PATIstudywas carried out in Australia (Rennie . 1987). The questionnairewas administeredto229 ye areightstudents in nine intactclassesin thePerthmetropolitan
area.The classes were selected to representanoverall balancein academicabilityand socio-economicstatus. Most students in thisstudy agreedthattechnology is important.
yet theirresponsesindicated that theydid not havean understandingoftechnology . More than half the students appearedto beunaware of the pervasivenessof technologyin everyday life. Many students.forexample,didnotrecognizeabicycleor aradio as products oftechnology.Morethan halfthe studentsfailed toappreciatethat technology existedmorethan100yearsago. Sixpercentofthestudents believedthat technologyonly concernedcomputer sand14percent believedthat italways had to do withelectricity.
Fortypercentofboysand56 percen tofgirls felt thatatschooltheydid nothearmuch about technology. Students genera lly wantedto learn more abouttechnology. In summary.thisstudy concludedthat a largeproportion ofstudents,including themajority ofgirls, show ahighlevel ofunawaren essand misconceptions about technology.
These and otherstudies indicate theneedformore in depthres earch intowhat students understand about
me
meaningofscienceandtechnology and,inparticular,how they see it relating tothemselves and the world in...hich they live.To do this,an attempt mustbemade to collect data whichprovidemorethana superficial knowledgeofstudents' understandings of STSissues. In thisprocess.it isnecessary alsotolookat any misconceptionsheld bythestudents concerning the meaningofscience and technology.Althoughthereisa verylargebody ofresearchin the fieldofstudents'misconceptionsof science (Pfundtand Duit,1991), it isverymuch focused onscientificconceptsand does
19
no!extendtotechnology . Nevertheless,intermsof itsfocuson theidentification of smdents'conceptions and whentheyareat variance withcurrently acceptedideas.this literatureisvery relevant tothe present study.A variety of termshave been usedto describethisarea ofstudy, including"misconceptions", "alterna tiveconceptions","naive conceptions","preconceptions"and"children's science"(Confrey, 1990;Gilbert and Watts,1983).Theseand other reviews of the studiesthat havebeen donein this area show the extentof attention thathasbeenpaidtothistopic (DriverandEasley,1978;
Posner,Strike,HewsonandGertzog,1982;Driverand Erickson,1983 :Eylon andLinn.
1988;PerkinsandSimmons,1988).The sourcesof thesemisconceptionshavealsobeen investigated andatleast five possiblesources havebeensuggested(Head,1986).These includethe following: everydayexperience andobservation;confusio n about analogies;
the useof metaphors;peers ;and innate origins. Discoveringsrudents 'prior knowledge willalsoprovide an indication ofmealternativeconceptions that theyhold, (Hewsonand Hewson,1983).
Attemptstodiscover students' misconceptions ofscience conceptshave beenmade locally.Grimm s andPresto n (1992)investigatedGrade12students' misconceptionsof fundamentalcharacteristicsof moleculesand atoms;Griffiths and Thomson (1993) looked atstudents' understandings ofscienceprocesses,and Griffithsand Barry(1993) investigatedstudents'misconceptionsofscience processes. In eachcase,many misconceptionswere identified,
Itcan be concludedfromtheresearch that students'misconceptions influencethe way inwhichthey perceive informationthat is presented to them.The presentstudyseeks to identifythe status of students' conceptionsaboutthe meaningof technology.
Methodological Tec hniques
Researchinto students'understandings of science andtechnologyandattitude;N science and technology has beenongoingfor a number of years andhastaken a variety of forms.Research methodologies in this areahaveincluded hothinterviewandpaper-and- penciltypeinvestigations.
Severalofthetests availablein this area at the time werereviewed by Aikenhead (1973). These included Teston Understanding Science (TOUS),Facts AboutScience Test (FAS), Nature of ScienceScale (NOSS), Science Process Inventory(SPI) ,Wisconsin Inventory of Science Processes(WISP), and Test onthe SocialAspects of Science (TSAS).
Itwas found that each seemed to havelimitations,and thatthey generallyfailed in researchdesigned to testthe effects ofdifferentteaching strateg ies.The instruments did prove useful. however.whenusedinexperimentsconcerning the conrer nof science lessons,
Aikenhead's (1988) analysisof fourmethods coveringa widerrange of methodologies considered Likert-typeresponse,writtenparagraph,semi-structu red
21
interviewandempiricall ydeveloped multiplechoice.He fou ndthatinterviewsclarified ambigu itiesin the students'viewpoints that were foundinwritten work. Ofthefour melhods,interv iewswere foundto providethemostlucidandaccura te dataandprovided theopportunity00investiga te thesourcesofsmdenu'beliefs.Theproblem withtheuse ofinterviews wassuggested tobetheamount of timeneededtogather and analyze the data.
Sutton(1980)reviewedtechniquesforprobingtheorganizationofalearner'sprior knowledge. Thisreviewlookedatclinica linterv iewsand theconstruction ofconcept maps,word-associ ation tasks, writingorse lectingadefinition ,andidentifyingand usin g bipolardimensionsina semaruicspace. Suttonconcludedthatanyusefulconceptualisation of howa learne r'sthoughts are organized mustincludesome pictureof itsdynamics as we llasitsstaticaspects,andthat theclinicalinterviewwasthemethodwhichhadthebest chanceof disp layingtheleamer's reasoning. Heatso concluded,howeve r,thatthe problems with thismethodarethelength oftimerequired andprobl e ms interpreting the dataco rrectl y.
Theuse ofinterviewshasalso been examineduame thodforstudyingstudents' misconce ptions. Lythcott andDusch!(1990)look ed attheinterv iewas a method for answe ri ngthefollowingquestion:
Whatarethegrounds that areusedto supportthe claims that:
1) childrenconstructpersonalconceptions aboutnatural phenomena,
2) these conceptionsare oftenascientific,and
3) theyareremarkably resistanttochangetowardmorescientific conceptionsthrough traditionalinstruction?
Lythcottand Duschlthen goon to illustratehow defensible conclusionscanbe reachedfrominterviewsinscience educationresearch.Theyalsopoint out threeof the probabledifficultiesthatcanbeencountered when using interviewsforthis type of research: inducing a student conversationwitha perceived authority figure, the danger of misrepresentingthe responses.andlhenecessityofholding a generalhypothesisabout what the student knows whichcanbeused toguide thegeneralflow of theinterview, whilestillbeingopento adapt10whatemerges outsidethe predictionof thaihypothesis.
Avoidingthesepitfallsislargelydependenton the skillof theinterviewer. Basic interviewingskillscanmake a greatdealof differencetothereliability,validityand completeness of theinformationobtainedfrom the interview (Gorden, 1992).
Guba and Lincoln(1981) examinedinterviewing with reference tothedegree of structurewhichshouldbeincorporatedinto theinterview.Interviewsmaybestructured.
adhering exclusivelyto a fixedsetof questions;unstructured,withoutanypre-set questions:or semi-structured.wherepre-setquestionsare usedas aguidelineallowingthe interviewerflexibilityto askprobing questions or questions10 clarify ambiguities.This flexibilityiswhetallowsadditionalinfonnationtobeobtainedbythis methodthatmay not beobtainedotherwise (Osborneand Gilbert,1980).Interviewing alsohas the advantage
23
of allowingtheinterviewerto use non-verbalcuesas a guidetowhen additionalilrobing isneeded.
Evenwiththepotential difficultiesoutlinedhere.the interviewwas considered to bethe mostappropriate method forthe research attempted in the presen tstudy.as other methodsdo not permit deep enoughprobing intostudents'ideasorthesources of these ideas.
Summary
Chapler twohas provided a summaryofresearchand literaturerelatingto the present study.Several definitionsof technologywerereviewedso asto provide a clearer understandingof the concept oftechnologyaccepted bythe researcherinthis study.This wasfollowedbya reviewofrelatedresearch studiesand a brief review ofthe melhodological techniquesemployedin this field of research.
Chapterthreepresentsthemethodologyutilized in the present study.
CHAPTERTHREE METHODOLOGYFORTHE STUDY
Overviewof the Chapter
This chapteroutlines the methodo logyused in the prese ntstudy,Itpresent sthe methodusedto select the samplefor thestudy and thecomposition of thesample.Italso providestheprocedureused10developthe questions usedin theinter views and the researchdesign ofthedata collection andanalysis.
The Sample
Interviewing a...a research technique islabourintensiveand timeconsuming.TI1i.~
facto r limits samplesize.In this srudy thesa mple conta ined 36stude nts, which after attritionbecame26.These stude nts were chosentoberepresentativeofthestudents who willbeenrolledinthe newprovincial sclence-reclmclogy-societycourse.Hence,studems wereselected from the schoolswhere theSTScoursewas 10be pilotedthe following
September . TheschoolswereselectedbytheDeparnnemofEducationto give a representative sampleofthevarious sizes ofhighschoolslhatexist in thisprovince.
Small,mediumandlargeschools were selected.Atthesametime.attemptswere made
tohave:schoob iD:ludedthatrepresentbothurban and rural settingswithin the prov ince.
howevertherewasnotaschool fromalargeurbansettingincludedinthepilot.Itwas Intendedthatabalanced representationof maleandfemale teachers be usedaswell.One ofthe pilot schoolsselectedis inLabr adorasthisrepresentsadifferent environmentin whichthe coursewillbe taught but thisschoolwas omitted fromthe presentsrudy for logisticalrea sons.
Theschools selectedforthestudyincludedHolyTrinityHighSchool, Torbay;
AscensionCollegiate,BayRobens;RandomIslandIntegrated School.RandomIsland;
LewlsporteRegionalHighSchool.Lewisporte:LaRochelleHighSchool,Brent'sCove;
andSop'sArmHigh School.Sop'sAnn.
Ateach ofthesesixschools,sixsmderaswhointendedto enrolin the STScourse lhefollowing Septemberwereinterview ed.lbesestudentswere selected jointlyby the interviewerandstaffattheschool inorderto provide a stratified randomsample.Three maleandthreefemale students wereselectedat eachschoolandthesestudentsrepresented high,averageandlowachievers in science,Studentswererandomly selected from class lis tsinthe schools and theselectionwasthen modifiedasnecessaryto provideonemale andone female stude ntineachofthethreegroups. Theprocedureprovidesa
representativesample of students inthe eventual target groupfor the STScourse, When the interviewswere transcribed fromtheaudiotapes itwas discoveredthat lhe six apes from theschoolat RandomIslandwere of verypoor audioqualityand could notbetranscribedand used, Fourother tapes couldnotbetranscribeddue to the very low volume of thestudents voices,This resulted in a samplesizeof 26.which consisted of 13 malesand 13 females.Thestudentsranged in age from15years and 5 months10 18 yearsand 4 months with an average age of16yearsand6 months.There were nine students in the high achievergroup, 10 in themiddle or averagegroup,andseven were ina groupof low achievers.
QuestionDevelopment
Theintended structureof the interviewsas semi-structured requiresthat aseries of questionsbedeveloped asaguidelineto maintaincommonalityoftheinterviewsasa whole.A seriesof corequestionswas developed whichfocusedonthemain aspectsof the concept of technologyand a seriesof probing questionswere alsodevelopedwhich couldbeusedif and whenfurther informationwas neededfromthe student.The questions werethen analyzedusing the followingcriteriadeveloped fromthose proposed by Guba and Lincoln (1981, p.I77) .
27
I. Isthisquestion necessary?How willtheresponsebeused?Howwillthe: responsebe analyzed?
2.Doesthequestion coverthetopic?Are otheradditional questions necessary?
3.Howwilllhisquestion beinterpreted?Areotherfactsreededbeforetheresponsewill makeany sense?
4.
po
therespondents 'lavetheinfonnation to answerthequestion?Has theinterviewer allowedfordifferences?Howreliablewouldtheinterviewerexpect theresponses to be?S.Howvaliddoesthe interviewerexpect the responsestobe?15thequestionleading'!
15itfonned invalueneutral tenns?Isthe responselikely tobeadequate? Whathas beentakenforgranted?What arcthe possibleframes of reference?
ThefinalinterViewguideisincludedin Appendix A. Inorderto establish students' understanding ofthemeaningof techoology,itwas considerednecessaryto includeequiValentquestionsrelating to sciencetodetermine:whethc:r.infact.thesrudents understoodthedifferencesbetweenscienceandtechnology.1be resultsofthisanalysis are comparedtotheresultsof otherstudies auemptingtoidentify studentsconceptionsof scientists andtechnologists,such as theDrawa ScientistTest(Kahle,1989)and theDraw aTechnologistat Work Test(Moore. 1987) .
Research Design
Tbepurposeofthedesign was to providetrcprc:sc:ntative sampleof studemsinthe targetgroup forthescience-tc:ehnology·~ictycourse. Samplesizewasdeterm ined mainlyby considerationofthetime necessaryto interview. transcribe.ark!analyzethis ki~ofdata.Asampleofaboutthirtystudentsis normalin suchstudies(Griffilhsaoo Preslon.1992;Griffiths andThomson.1993;Griffiths andBarry.1993;GarncnaOO Treagust,1992)
Oncetheschoolswereselectedtheinterviewer arrangedvisits10each school.The studentswereselectedandtheninterviewedonaone to one basisduringregularschool hours.Thesettingof the interview.anoffice or unused classroomwithin theirschool.
wasmadeas relaxed as possible\Y.lthphysicallyand verbally (0 encourage students10 pro...ide accurateinformation.Itwas felt thatstudents wouldbemore likelyto prov ide accurate informationfreelyif they did not feel intimidated.Theywereassuredthatthe taperecordingaOOtheir identitywouldbekeptconfidential.Probing questiorn;wereu~
whenthesruckrnsprovided indications,...erbalor nonverbal.thattheywatha! toelaborate but couldnotseem10express whattheywantedto say. Thesetechniques are recommended toassistingettingcorrect andrelevantinformationfroman interview (Gorden.1992).
The interview questionswerereviewedinitially byseveralscience teachersto
2.
determine if they are relevant tothetopicslikelyto emerge indiscussionsof this topicand 10 see iftheyare sufficientto cover the topic.Once thequestionswerefinalized,the interviewwasfieldtested four timesinapilot studyto allow theinterviewer to determine theappropriatenessofthe questions IIIterms ofword ing and in termsof the generalflow of theinterview.Theseinterviewswere conducted with studentsatHolyTrinityHigh Sch?olwhohad beeneliminatedfromthemainstudy. The interv iewswere thenconducted withthe main sample. Each interview took approxi mately30 minutesandwastape- rec ordedand thentranscribed for analysis. Atthispointintheprocess, several inter views wereeliminatedfromthestudydue to poor audio quality. Conceptual inventories.as describedby Erickson(1979).were thenconstructedfrom these interviews for further analysis.
AnalysisProcedures
Theinter views weretranscribed verbatimfromthetapeso that theintended response ofthe studentcouldbedeterminedas accuratelyas possible. Conceptual inventories werethen developed from these transcripts .The conceptual inventor ies were reviewed by independent scienceteachers and.where appro pr iate,modified to accommodate the irconcerns . The conceptualinventorieswere then analyzed for conceptions and misconceptions.As well, theintervi ew transcr iptswereanalyzedand
information used directlyfrom them.The data collectedin this way includedstudents' responses to lists of examplesof science and technologyand alsoresponses to the sketches usedin the interview.Thisinfonn ation required nointerpretat ion.
ReliabilityandValidity
Two methodswere employed to check thereliability ofthe procedures used.First.
several repeatquestion s werebuilt into the interview. This allowed the interviewer to determine the consistency of the students'responses overthecourse of the interview.In addition,the set of statementsthat..sere developedfromthe interviewtranscriptswere analyzedby individualscience teachers andscience-teachers-in-trainingtohelp ensure that the conceptualinventorieswerenot biased bytheresearchersconceptionsand that they arc appropiaterepresenta tionsof theresponsesof the students.
The validity ofthe procedure was checked bythe reviewof the questionsby severalscience educatorsbeforeanyinterviewswerecarriedout andagain bythe pilot study.Modificationswere made to theinterv iew protocolaftereach of theseprocedures to accommodate concerns withwordingand any othermailersthatarose.
Summary
This chapterhasoutlinedthe methodologyused to collectandanalyze thedatafor
31
this study.Thisincludestheselection ofthesample,thedevelopment oftheinterview prceccol,the researchdesign of the pilotand main studiesandthe analysisprocedure employed to obtain the relevantdatafromtheinterview transcripts.
Chapterfourpresentsthefindings ofthestudy.
CHAPTER4
RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
Overviewof the Chapter
This chapterpresentsthefindings of the sNdy. As describedintheprevious chapter,eachinterviewwas transcribedverbatimfrom the tapes and conceptual inventories were then constructedfrom thesetranscripts.Thedatapresentedinthis chapterincludes data fromthese conceptualinventoriesanddatatakendirectly from Utelnervtew transcripts.Resultsare presented in tabularformand includeinformation obtainedfrom the students for each topicdiscussed wherethe idea was found in three ormore students' responses.Otherresponsesthat weregivenbyonlyone ortwo studentsare included in thediscussionsfollowingthetablesifthey areparticularlyinterestingorrelatedirectlyto otherresearch findings. The discussionof theresultshowever is forthe mostpartlimin..'<1 toideas that canbeallributedtothree or more students,ie.tomore than10percentofthe sample.
Tableone containslists ofobjectsand events andthe numberofstudentsselecting
33
eachoftheseas examplesof science,technology,science and technology,and those that are neither sciencenor leChnology,respectively.Theseexamplesincludetheir responses tothe lists providedtothem.Thistableshowstheoomber ofstudents who classifiedeach of theexamples provided asbeingscience.technology,neithersciecen nor teclmology,or both. Other examplesprovidedbythestudents themselves.atthebeginningofthe interview,are includedinthediscussion followingTableone.Table two listslhelOlal numberof studentsc1a.~sifyingeachof anumber of given processes accordingto whether they are relatedto scienceor technology orneitheror both.Tablesthreeand four listthe students' understanding ofthe purposeof scienceandtechnology, respectively.Table five indicates their understanding oftherelationship betweenscience andtechnology.Each of theseincludes alistoftheresponsesgivenby three or morestudents andthe numberof students whogave eachresponse. Tables six.seven,eightandnineliststudents' understandingofthecharacteristicsofsceensuandtechnologists.Table 10represents srudems'understanding of therespcnsibllities oftheseoccupations. Table11lists examples oftheove rall relationshipbetweenscience.technologyandsociety.andagain isin a similarformat10Tablethree.Finally,Tables12 and 13 refertowherestudents find their information aboutscience and technology.
Foreachtopic area,the students'conceptions arediscussedin relation totheir prevalence andin their agreementordisagreementwith currently accepted definitions of conceptionsof thesetopics.Itshouldbenoted that as !hiswas a semi-structuredinterview
format notallstudents gaveusable responsetoall questions.Also.onafewoccasions students did not giveaudible responsesto a particular question on their inter view tape.
This meansthatsums of students agreeing or disagreeingwith a particularpoint or classifying aparticular example mayor may not add up to the totalnumberof subjectsin the final sample.Finallya brief analysisof thedatain termsofge nder differencesis presented.
Results
Examples ofScience and Technology
Thefirstpart of the lntervle,vasked students what theythought ofwhenthey heard thewordscience.and then, separately, the word technology .These twoquestionswere followedby a list of examples .which students wereasked(0 classifyas examplesof science.technology,bothscience and technologyornehhersciencenortechnology.The resultsof theselists ofexamples arepresentedin Table one in the order in whichthe examplesweregivenduringtheinterview.Someof the examplesinitially given bythe students are notedin the discussionfollowing the table.
35
Table1
fJramplesof SdeoceandTechnology
Example Science Technology Neither Both
studying atomsandmolecules 26 0 0 0
computer 0 24 0 2
toaster I 20 2 3
electron microscope 10 6 0 10
telephone 4 18 1 3
hammer 5 12 9 0
new medicinefdrug 14 3 0 9
television 0 2S 0 1
newmilitary equipment 0 19 0 7
DNA 24 1 0 0
-
artificial heart 4 6 0 IS
spaceshuttle 2 12 0 12
steam engine 2 18 0 5
stripedtoothpaste 10 3 4 8
These:resultspresent someinterestingcooccptionsandmisconcept ions thatsmdenlS haveabout typicalexamplesofscienceaOOtechnology.respectively.The first columnof Table oneliststhose examples that respondentsthought represent science. Thefirst examplehere is the onlyone forwhichthere wasagreementamongalt 26respondenls.
Allsaid thatstudyingatomsand molecules representedscience. Twenty-four of!he students also respondedthat sn:dyi ngDNAis an example ofscience. These examples represent thingsthalarestudiedinscience classinschooland therefore arelogically and easilyrelated(0science bymost of thestudents.Anew medicine or drugwaslisted as anexample ofscience byISrespondents .Thismayheduetothehistorythey as.mciale with medicineratherthan aconscious elimination ofthetechnologyinvolvedin modern medicines or it maybethatthemedicineitselfis achemicalandthereforeconsidered10 bepanofscience. Two examples given in theJistto studentsproducedprevalent responses that cause more concern.Stripedtoothpaste and theelectron microscope:were classifiedasexamples of science aloneby10students each.Separatingeitheroftbcsc from technology showsa lack ofunderstand ing of theconceptof tech nology.Striped toothpaste ispossiblyclass ifiedthiswayasagainit isthesubstanceitself10whichthey arereferrin g.One student,forexample. reasonedthatstriped toothpaste is anexample ofsciencebecauseyou"havetomix things together"to get it.Anelectron microscope isseenas atool ofscienceand theref orerepresentativeofscienceramerthantechnology.
Evenmoretroubling.but notas prevalent. istheclassificationofahammer asscienceby
37
fivestudents. This, byany widelyaccepted definition,ISa technological instrument. The typicalreasoningpresentedfora hammer .asstated by onestudent, wasthat~something that has been around for alongtimecan' tbetechnology".Thetelepho neand an artificial heart were classifi edasscience byfour students each.Inboth casesit couldbeargued that theserepresenta blendingof science and technologybut neither couldreasonably be classjfledsolelyas science.
Inthe initial questionposed to thestudents. theywere askedwhatk.indsof things cameto theirmind when theyheardtheword science. Althoughthisinitialope n-response questionserved mainlyto starttheinterv iew and introducethelistsofexam ples, itdid produce some interestingresponses.Themost prevalentresponses werelisting ofschoo l science subjects . Thirteen students mentionedbiology,lenincludedchemistry and eight listedphysicsas examplesufscience. Twostudents actuallyrespondedthat theyfell sciencewassomethingthatexisted onlyin the classr oom and theycouldn'tthinkof any examples outsid eof school. Other responses that were givenin thisinitial list included chemicals(eightstudents). computers (fivestudents) and the environment(fourstudents).
Columntwoliststheexamplesof technologyalone. Televisionandcompu terswere classified asexamples of technologyby25 and24students, respectively.Atoasterwas listedas anexample ofteclmologyby 20 students,newmilitaryequipmentby 19students and thesteam engine and the telephone by 18students each.A hanunerwas classifiedas anexample of technologyby12students. Allof thesefit with currently accepted
3.
dermitionsof technol ogy.The spaceshun lewaslisted ast~hnologyalone by12ofthe responden ts.Whilethisisarguable that scienceis involved here10 alarger exterathan insomeOlhercases,it fitswiththeproductsor machineryconccpIionlhat prevails inmany ofthestcderas'responses.Machineryitselfwaslisted as anexampleof technology byII slUdents. eventhough it was not given in the list.Ot~rsimilar problem s occurwith an artificialheart(sevenstudents},an electronmicroscope (fivestudents).andstripc.'t1 toothpasteand a newmedicineor drug .which wereclassifiedastechnologyalone by three students each.
Colwnn three lists examplesthai wereclassified asneitherscience nor technology.
Theseare allcause for concern.A hammerwas listedbyninestudents.str ipedtoothpaste byfour.a toasterbytwo and a telephonebyone.Eachoftheseexamplesindicatedthai some stude ntsdonotassociate-everyday·items with science andtechnologyevc:nwhen they are good examplesof oneorboth.
All examples classified bythe studentsas beingbothscience and tech nology arc:
represented in !hetasr columnofT~Jeone.'Themostprevalent example was Iheartincial heart(15students).Thisexample combines featuresmal manyof the studentssawasthe spec ifica tionsfor the divisionbetween science andtechnology.namelya biological link onthe onehand andelectro nic: equipmenton lhe ether.An electron microscopewas classified as beingan exampleofbothscience and technology by 10 studentsona similar basis.The spaceshuttle wasplaced in this categoryby12students and was seeninsome
3 .
cases as combining research (science) with machinery (technology). Other examples placed in this groupcanbeexplained similarly:newmedicine (ninestudents).military equipment (sevenstudents),steam engine (five students), and the telephoneandthe toaster (threestudentseach). Striped toothpastewasplacedinthis categoryby five students who generallysaw thatbothscience and technologyhadtobeusedinordertoproduceit as a product.One studentreasoned that science isusedinmaking stripedtoothpas tebecause of thechemicalsinvolved inmakingit andtechnologyisinvolved becauseofthe machinery in thefactory wheretheymakeit.
ActivitiesAssociated With Scienceand Technology
The nextpart ofthe interviewasked the students whatthey thoughtwerethe processes oractivitiesassociatedwithscienceandtechnology respectively.Resultsfrom this sectionarepresented in Tabletwo.
Each of the live processesoractivitieslisted showed amajority ofstude ntsgiving apart icularresponse. Discover ingwas considered tobeanactivityassociatedwith scienceby16 of the 26 students.Fourstudentsassociated itwith technology and sixsaid thatitcouldbeinvolved inboth. For designing, 18 of the studentssaidit was anactivity associated with technology.Theseresponseslitwith the earlie rexamplesofscience and
Table2
Acti yjtie s associatedwithscienceand lechnol ogy
Process Science Technology Both
Discovering 16 4 6
Designing 4 18 4
Making 3 14 9
Uncovering 21 2 3
Inventing 5 15 6
41
technologygiven by thestudentsasmost of theactivities theygaveas examples of science involved discovering or finding out things.Designingfits withtheproduct oriented examplesthatmoststudents gave for technology.Theactualprocessofmakingsomething showedthemost variationinresponses, with 14studentsassociatingitwith technology, ninesayingthat itcouldbeboth and threeassociatingitonlywith science.The students whoclassifiedmakingas beingrepresentativeofbothscience and technology typically added thatKitdependson whatyou'remaking",Theactualconstructionor production of things has a stronglinktotechnology for most ofthestudents. As one studentstated,"If he wasmaking a machineit'dbe technology".Theprocessofuncovering a factthatno one hadknown beforewasseenas scienceby 21ofthe 26 respondents,againreinforcing the"findingOUIaboutthings"aspectofscience.Finally, 15 of the 26 respondentssaw inventingas an activityassociated withtechnology, once againafmding whichmighthave beendueto the associationof technology withproducts.Inallfive cases, the majorityof studentsconsidered there to bea separation betweenthe activitiesof scienceand the activitiesof technologysimilarto thatdescribedbyFensham (1990),namelyscienceas involvingknowingand technologyasinvolving making. The processes that involved mental activities,discovering and uncoveringa new fact,wereconsidered tobe representativeof science.Thoseactivitieswhichinvolvedmakingproducts,(designing, making andinventing)were consideredtoberepresentative oftechnotogy.
ThePurpose ofScience and Technology
The thirdsectionoftheinterview askedthesrudems"What is Olepurpos eIIf science?" and then "Whatisthe purposeoftechnology?".Thestude ntswere nor provided with lists of exampleshere,butsimplyasked theseitems as open-ended questions.The results of this sectionare prese nted inTablesthree andfour,respectively.
A large number.19 of the 26 students, responded that the purpose of sciencewns tofind outthings.This againfitswiththe maj ority of responsesgivenas examp lesof science.Science is seen largelyas a processof discovery or findi ng outthings .Find ing medicines or cures for diseases was the purposeof science givenby six ofthe students.
Againthisis anassociationwithscience that was seenearlierinthe examples ofscience.
This association equatingscientific researchwithfindingcuresfor diseaseswus also fo und inthe VaSTSstudy (Fleming, 1987). Four student.. slatedthatthepurpose of sciencewa...
to helptechn ology. As will be seenlater, thisis indicativeofa problemanumbe rof studentshave concerning the relationship and interdependencebetweenscienceand technology. Technology is sometimesseenbythe studentsas aresult or applicatio nof science . Three students eachgave thepurpose ofscienceastohelp peopleand tomake
43
Table3 ThePmPQse pfScjence
Purpose #of respons es
10find outthings 19
to findmedi ci nesorcures fordiseases 6
10helptechnology 4
10 help peop le 3
tomake the worldbetter 3
Table 4
ThePurposeof Technology
Purpose /Iof responses
to makelifeeasier 12
10makethingsmoreadvanced 10
inventions 3
45
theworldbetter. Inthe VaSTSstudy (Fleming,1987) 31per-centof thestudents believedthat research shouldbefunded because science functions 10 benefit society and
"striving forabetter world"wasgiven as oneof the primary reasonsfordoing science.
Thisassociationagainfils with the finding outthingsconception ofscience . but now with a specificreasonfordoingso. Howevermakingthe worldbetter isa function of technologyratherIhanscience and nOIreallyacceptable as a purposeforscience. This againillustratesthedifficullymanyof thestudentshave differentiating between science and technology.
Thepurpose of technologywaslargely dividedintc two sectionsby the respondents.Twelveofthestudentssaid that the purposeof technology is10make life easierand tenreplied that its purposeis tomake thingsmore advanced.Threestudents gavethepurpose of technologyasinventions.All of theseresponsesfollowa similar patternandretlecraview oflechnology asaprovider of usefulproducts.Thisonce again nuwithearlierresponseslinkingtechnology with products.
A varietyof otherresponseswithlow frequencieswereobtainedfor bothscience and technology. Other purposesforscience included to seewhat life is, toanswer questions.to invent,tohelpthe environment,to make usmoreintelligent, to makelife easier.to prove things,tocreate thingsand to make progress.Other purposesgivenfor technologyincluded tohelpscience. tohelptheworld, to dothings.tomakethingshappen
faster,to fmd outthings.to explore space,to makethings work. to build things and10 better soctery.
TheRelations hipBetween Science and Technology
The fmal questiondirectlyaboutscienceandtechno logy that wasposedto the students concerned the relationsh ipbetweenscience andtechn ology.Therespo nses varied widelyand thus ind icatedsomeverydiffe rent opinionsonthis min ier.The statements madebythe students in responseto thisquestionaresum marizedin Tablefive.
The most prevalent response in thissectionwasthe belief that withoutSciCIlCC, technology wouldnotexist.Theideawas foundwith16 ofthe 26 respondems.Thishas severalimplicationsincludi nganobviouslack ofrealunde m anding ofthenature of technology.Studentsdo not seetechnology as anentityunto itself,bUIratheras a product or applicationofscie nce. They fail tosee ancienttechnologies, suc h as the usc of thc hammer,as examplesof technologybecauseof this belief.Onlyfourstudentsstated that techn ology wouldexist withoutscience.Thenextresponse showsa differentaspectof the relationship.Thirteen of the respondentsexhibited thebelief thatsciencewouldexist without technologybut we would n'tknowas muchaboutit.Also,three studentsindicated
47
Table S
RelatiQnshipbetwee n Scienceand TechnQIQfY
Statement #ofrespons es
withoutscience.technology wouldnot exist 16 sci~ncewouldexistwithouttechnology but 13 we wouldn't know asmuch about it
science andtechnologyaretwo different 11 things
scienceand technology are twodifferent 10
scienceand technology areinterdependent 10
scienceandtechnology are related 8
science wouldexistwithouttechn ology 5
technol ogy wouldexistwithoutscience 4
we need technologyas reelsforscience 3
a similarrelationshipby stalingthatweneedtechnologytoprovidethe toolsforscience.
Although this isacorrect,it is anincompleteview of technology.Fivestudentssimply statedthat science wouldexistwithout technology.Amoretroubling viewwas indicated bytwo students who said that sciencewould exist without technologybutit wouldhave no purpose.nus againshows the ideathat technology is whensomebody actuallytakes thescienceanduses it to dosomething.Accordingto this view, scienceitsclfhasnoreal use.Eleven students indicated that scienceand technologyarein fact two differentthings.
However 10 otherstudents stated that scienceandtechnologyarejusttwodifferent ways of referring to the same thing.Typically,thc studentswhodist inguished betweenscience and tcchnology did so on the basisof thekindsof thingsthat one woulddoinscienceand in technology . As stated by one student in response to this section,"I think that technologyreferstobuildingthingsmore whilesciencerefers tofindi ng outabout things.
like findingout how an atom works.while technology islikebuildinga computer. " Ten studentsstated thatscience and technologyare interdependentandeightstudents staledthat they are related.Again the idea that scienceand technology arcthe same th ing indicat es a reallack of understandingofti-e two fields,or at least of one ofthem.Thestatement that science andtechnology are interdependent againreturns to the problemthatstudents are not comingto therealizationthat each can existwithout the other.Two statements thatweremadebyone student ineach case alsobring upsome seriousmisconceptions.
One student eachsaid thatif we havescience, we willautomaticallyhave technologyand
49
